With so many generals I don't see why we can't play more then one adventure these days.
I would rly like to be able to play more then one adventure at same time
Printable View
With so many generals I don't see why we can't play more then one adventure these days.
I would rly like to be able to play more then one adventure at same time
The way to multiple adventures is protected by the feared dragon of lag, a creature of scaly hide, yellowing eyes, foul breath.
You can play 2 at a time, one you start yourself, and one you are invited to.
Because BB doesnt seem to have any intention to update existing content to match how gameplay changes overtime. In this and other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3s4r
start 1, finish 1, start another..
apart from the tedious waiting times for gens to stroll around (which bb has addressed somewhat, jog + horseshoes) I don't see why any1 would want to play more than 1 adv at a time
Efficiency ?Quote:
Originally Posted by vigabrand
You spend same amount of time and get 2+ the amount of rewards.
With the exception of the adventures that require you to use a full set of unique heroes, I cant really think of any reason people wouldnt do it on regular basis.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit_
You forgot lose 2x the troops meaning you need 2x the production and 2x as many buffs, which means waiting 2x longer before you can do it again because you only have 1 barracks to replace those troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkz
the 'need' to play multiple adventures comes from poor adventure design. if you had to be constantly active you would not have time to play more at a time.
when designing adventures im guessing BB had goals on how long an adventure should last. they solved it by making long walking paths which was easiest for them but most boring for us.
order gen to relocate ~10 seconds. wait for them to relocate x minutes.
change troops and order the attack ~20 sec. wait for the attack and return 2x minutes.
BOOORING. active and inactive times are way off.
I think there could be a case for being able to run scenarios and adv at same time. As you have to build whatever, so rather than wait you could jump to the other adventure. Maybe?
I would suggest removing restriction on the second adventure slot from invited only to also be able to start an adventure. Most adventures BB develops are single player (really bad decision imo) so the invite only slot sees less and less use. The least they could do is counter it by removing the restriction.
so 2nd adv could be something like Tropical Sun. I understand the need to keep active (re: squirrels comment) and i don't see any harm in doing a lvl26 adv on the side.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkz
Dorotheus makes a very good point.
Kriegor's idea sounds better. I never do scenario's (i think we all know why), but it would give u something to do while gen's are wandering around aimlessly and it wouldn't require a major revamp of the whole game to increase production from ore right up to barracks!
Or run adv and pvp at the same time. Different troops & gens, game mechanic,... so why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriegor
Even tho it's not efficient in terms of rewards, pvp can be fun, but I won't play it if it means not being able to do adv.
I dont see any reason why I would bother doing a lvl 26 adventure.Quote:
Originally Posted by vigabrand
I was talking more about something like doing RBs in parallel, or doing FTs and Alibabas at the same time (since neither really actually REQUIRE champions).
Depends how one looks at it, its either twice as many units consumed in the same time, or achieving the same effect in half the time one would need to complete 2 adventures right now. I would argue the latter seems quite attractive, at least to some people.Quote:
You forgot lose 2x the troops meaning you need 2x the production and 2x as many buffs, which means waiting 2x longer before you can do it again because you only have 1 barracks to replace those troops.
I've seen BB answer to this in some other regional forums long time ago and there were zero plans to support it back then. It was mainly related to server load as double adventures increase the memory and cpu requirements and the fact player would hopping between 2 adventures causing load requests. I don't remember if it was said also back then in the same post that double adventures did not make sense initially as there were only normal adventures and no expeditions, elite troops, scenarios so there were no preparations for it and the change would take too much effort or something.
I think running double adventures at same time would be bad tbh to much scope for higher levels to be running 2 seasonal adventures at once during events. I do however see the logic in being able to run scenarios or pvp or both at the same time as an adventure. Neither appeal to me but I honestly don't see the harm.
I would agree at least with scenarios. You can run side quests already (e.g. ones from the Excelsior) while on an adventure, I don't see scenarios being any different. It would be a great way to use up idle time in the adventure and without troops being involved I can't see where it would be much more of a load. I think I would stop there though due to any system constraints: 1 adventure, 1 invite to another adventure, 1 scenario. If you let it go too far then the impact would start being noticed I suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesavanah